So, can I attend a SSPX mass or not?

[Melchior_1]

As a whole, I think anyone who loves the EF owes a lot to the SSPX, for if it weren’t for them, the EF would not be as accessible as it is today. I know the FSSP wouldn’t, since it was founded by ex-SSPX priests. That being said, until they are formally united with the Church, I will not attend myself, nor encourage or discourage others from doing so.

Time for some applied temporal physics.

• His Grace Lefebvre does not consecrate four Bishops, he yields to the chief lawgiver of the Church. Impressed with the obedience, more priests join his Society. His Grace Lefebvre turns down the rhetoric and lets his practices speak for him, and even more people join him. Gradually, people who are sympathetic to his desires of more widespread use of the EF gain influence, and his Society is able to exercise valid ministry as a result.
• A 'godfather offer" was presented at some point, and the Society refused it. They would have literally been given rights and privileges not seen since the Jesuits, but they refused. What if they accepted? That’s a lot of history that would need to be re-written.
• Lets go back even further; His Grace Lefebvre does not bypass the diocesan level. A grass roots movement begins, and gradually becomes a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right. Although they have no bishops, their exercise valid ministry in the Church, and begin to have members in influential positions.

The last point is of special interest to me, as several here know that over the last ten years I have witnessed a Society of Apostolic Life do exactly as described above. It started with three men, now they have a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right.

Lets go back even further, to the following scenarios:

• What if Dominic became a Bishop, and started ordaining priests without approval?
• Ditto Francis?
• What if Mother Theresa became an apostate?

All sorts of things.

All of this leads to a simple thing; we don’t know, but the ends never justify the means.

 

[Melchior_1]

That was an interesting way to put it.

While we may not see eye to eye sometimes I appreciate this post.

Thank you. Sadly, the example I gave hits a bit close to home as that happened to a family member in another city

 

[Rich_C]

We’re talking mortal sins here, guys. And I’m not as concerned about the people who go to a SSPX confessional and don’t know the situation (I’m sure God’ll understand), I’m deffo very concerned with the people who should know better, but do it anyway.

Because, this isn’t illicit, this is INVALID. People can brush off the former, but the latter…I’d be careful.

Listen to Melchior here, folks. The Church says “some cases” to attending their Masses, but “never!” to their confessions. It’s not worth your soul.

 

[JReducation]

Be wary of the attitude that some people have that “illicit is OK, as long as it’s valid”. This attitude is quite cavalier and a danger to the soul. In essence, it says that one can break the law in order to achieve a good. Such a mindset is contrary to dogma which says that one may never do evil in order to achieve a good. Disobedience to the laws of the Church is an evil. Disobedience is the central theme of Original Sin. Not much more needs to be said here.

Every sacrament celebrated by the SSPX and any other priest who is suspended is illicit (illegal). Take this example. We take civil laws very seriously. In fact, one of the greatest cries of the Traditionalist Movement is against illegal immigration. Many go as far as calling a hungry family who crosses a border illegally, “criminals.”

As the Gospel says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” If we give to Caesar the right to declare that something that is not a sin is a criminal act, therefore illegal and we casually dismiss what the Church declares to be a criminal act and therefore illegal, where is our fidelity?

The rule must be based on solid moral theology. Moral theology says that one may never do evil to achieve good. When did disobedience cease to be evil? Regardless of what others are doing, one will not answer for them at the final judgment. One will answer for one’s own disobedience.

This takes us to the next principle of moral theology. To knowingly support a person who sins is to become complicit in the sin. Don’t we say this all the time about Catholic politicians who support abortion? Then, how can one attend a mass celebrated against the law of the Church and claim not to be supporting the priest who is objectively sinning?

Whether or not the Extraordinary Form mediates more graces than the Ordinary Form becomes irrelevant, if one is sinning in order to attain those graces. Therefore, the policy of the Holy See, which has not changed, is that a Catholic may attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his Sunday obligation, if he feels the need to attend the EF and if it is not available to him. However, said Catholic may not, attend for the purpose of lending support to the SSPX, nor to acknowledge or validate them contrary to the will of the Holy Father. In addition, said Catholics must guard themselves form being swept up in the schismatic mentality of many of the priests of the Society and of the laity who support them.

As to the other sacraments, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not valid when celebrated by a priest of the Society except in case of life and death. The Church supplies jurisdiction in that situation. This also applies to Anointing of the Sick, since there is absolution involved. The SSPX’s claim that they have supplied jurisdiction to absolve from sin has not been proven or accepted by the Holy See. Some will argue that the Holy See has not denied it either. The Holy See does not have to deny what has always been law. All priests must have faculties from the diocesan bishop or a male religious superior to validly absolve. Those faculties are only valid within the jurisdiction of the person granting them. The bishops of the SSPX are not diocesan bishops. Even if they were not suspended, they would still not have the authority to grant faculties anymore than an auxiliary bishop does, without delegation from the diocesan bishop.

The jury is still out on whether or not the Sacrament of Confirmation administered by the Bishops of the Society is valid. Some Canon Lawyers have raised the alarm that said Confirmations may not be valid, since Confirmation is reserved for the Ordinary of the Diocese or his delegate. Again, the SSPX bishops are neither ordinaries, nor delegates to any ordinary. The question in Canon Law is whether the Sacrament of Confirmation requires jurisdiction, since Canon Law says that it is the right of the diocesan bishop. At this time, we have no more news on this question.

Given the current situation, that the Society is splitting into two, the SSPX and the SSPX-SO, this raises other concerns about any contact with them. A society of apostolic life is bound by the same canons that bind religious orders and religious congregations. The difference between the society of apostolic life and religious orders and congregations is that a society of apostolic life may be secular, meaning that its members are not consecrated by vows. However, they are incardinated into the society and are bound by obedience to the superior general of the society. In this case, the members of the society may never secede from the society. Nor may the members call for a coup de stat against the dully elected superior. All of this is happening in the Society as we speak. This raises questions about the mindset of some members of the Society. We have no way of telling if the priest celebrating the mass that you want to attend is violating ANOTHER Canon Law. This would only add to one’s confusion, rather than help one’s spiritual journey, if one were to become too involved in the internal workings of the Society at this point.

The best advice is caution and if possible, avoidance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[fpt]

Too much conflicting information! At least in my 2 days of reading internet posts.

Mass?
Confession?

As a catholic (loyal to the Pope) can I go to SSPX for sacraments?

Thanks

If you are Roman Catholic, in conscience, you cannot to attend a SSPX mass, actively. By Actively, I mean to say to go to every sunday because you think, that the ordinary forms or the other Extraordinary forms are wrong, illicit, harmful, dangerous, per se. You cannot to receive the holy communion, you do not have to receive the holy communion.

I am sorry if I am direct, but it is like that, it is not negotiable. The fact of saying the true is better than saying nothing. I respect the official point of view of catholic church, it is my line of thought and of my acts. After, If you need to go for friends for marriage, for instance, why not, but only in the passive behavior (no holy communion).

No holy communion; validity and no liceity
No confession: no liceity and no validity.
No confirmation: no liceity, validity, I am not sure???
No marriage: no validity, no liceity

 

[Melchior_1]

Over in another thread we saw that someone posted something from a “chapel” near someone’s home. I didn’t want to derail that thread, so I am posting this here:

*Should you be a Catholic who is assisting at the traditional Mass for the first time (or for the first time in a long time), we ask that you refrain from receiving Communion until you decide to assist at the traditional Mass exclusively and to refrain from assisting at the New Mass. *

vs

*To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. *

Is there much of a difference in these two statements?

 

[JReducation]

Over in another thread we saw that someone posted something from a “chapel” near someone’s home. I didn’t want to derail that thread, so I am posting this here:

*Should you be a Catholic who is assisting at the traditional Mass for the first time (or for the first time in a long time), we ask that you refrain from receiving Communion until you decide to assist at the traditional Mass exclusively and to refrain from assisting at the New Mass. *

vs

*To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. *

Is there much of a difference in these two statements?

Yes, the second statement is heresy. It says that it’s a sin to assist at the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, the second statement is heresy. It says that it’s a sin to assist at the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The second one is from the SSPX USA website, which is why I was asking. They should really think twice about keeping the content on there, it’s sending some mixed messages.

Unless they actually believe the above, then I guess that just gives an indication of the likelihood of them coming back all the way.

 

[Kevin812]

The second one is from the SSPX USA website, which is why I was asking. They should really think twice about keeping the content on there, it’s sending some mixed messages.

Unless they actually believe the above, then I guess that just gives an indication of the likelihood of them coming back all the way.

I believe I need to go look up the term hatchet-job

 

[Melchior_1]

I believe I need to go look up the term hatchet-job

Are you accusing me of this? Or the fellow on the SSPX who supplied the answer?

Because I pulled the quote from the SSPX USA website. This is public information, available to the public. The official stance of the SSPX USA District is that assisting at the Ordinary Form is a sin. A venial sin mind you, but still a sin.

 

[Vir_Iucundus]

Every sacrament celebrated by the SSPX and any other priest who is suspended is illicit (illegal).

Stating that “sacrament celebrated by the SSPX and any other priest who is suspended is illicit” implies that we are speaking about catholic priests.

In other words:
-either you suppose the suspension a divinis licit: in this case you suppose a problem “intra Ecclesia”.
-onto the contrary, if you suppose SSPX priests being acatholic, they have no reason to pay attention to such penalities, because the Church has not jurisdiction beyond her boundaries, neither the canon law applies to acatholics.

The pope cannot suspend an acatholic priest. Or could he do that ?

 

[JReducation]

Stating that “sacrament celebrated by the SSPX and any other priest who is suspended is illicit” implies that we are speaking about catholic priests.

In other words:
-either you suppose the suspension a divinis licit: in this case you suppose a problem “intra Ecclesia”.
-onto the contrary, if you suppose SSPX priests being acatholic, they have no reason to pay attention to such penalities, because the Church has not jurisdiction beyond her boundaries, neither the canon law applies to acatholics.

The pope cannot suspend an acatholic priest. Or could he do that ?

The pope, bishop and religious superior can suspend any priest who is ordained by a Catholic bishop, even if the priest leaves the Church and becomes an atheist. The suspension applies to the privilege, not to the status of the person in relation to the Church. It is the Church who grants the privilege to celebrate the sacraments, not ordination. Therefore, it is the Church who can take that privilege away.

The Church cannot take away the ontological mark, because that comes from the Holy Spirit. The Church is the means through which the Spirit operates.

Since the Church does not ordain Orthodox clergy, she has no authority over the privilege. She never granted it in the first place. It was granted by another valid and apostolic Church. Only that Church can suspend the privilege.

Celebrating the sacrament without the privilege is illegal or illicit. Receiving it from someone who does not have the right to celebrate it is also illegal, if one is doing it with disregard for the authority of the Church on the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Vir_Iucundus]

T
Since the Church does not ordain Orthodox clergy, she has no authority over the privilege. She never granted it in the first place. It was granted by another valid and apostolic Church. Only that Church can suspend the privilege.

Something does not fit. You state “since the Church does not ordain Orthodox clergy, she has no authotiry over the privilege”. OK. But, assuming SSPX is “extra Ecclesiam”, or, in Vat 2 phraseology “in incomplete communion”, this is equal to say the Church has no authority regarding the SSPX priests’ privilege, since they, as well as their orthodox brothers in priesthood, was ordained by bishops that, at the time the ordination took place, was in “incomplete communion”.

In simple words: what is the difference between a SSPX priest ordained by Mons de Gallaretta and a priest ordained by His Beatitude Kyrill of Moscow ? Why are you saying the Church has jurisdiction to the one, but not to the other ? In both cases not “the Church” offered them sacramental privilege, but schismatic bishops.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Are Catholics who consider themselves SSPX members in mortal sin? Are they heretics? Where do they stand in terms of their souls?

This whole thing freaks me out. On one hand, we have the Catholics who dissent with just about all the main teachings, like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Then on the other hand, we have the SSPX who think that we should cancel out Vatican II and go back to the Latin Mass, and they say that all the Popes since then are invalid (what authority do they claim to say such a thing?)!

Sigh…

 

[JReducation]

Something does not fit. You state “since the Church does not ordain Orthodox clergy, she has no authotiry over the privilege”. OK. But, assuming SSPX is “extra Ecclesiam”, or, in Vat 2 phraseology “in incomplete communion”, this is equal to say the Church has no authority regarding the SSPX priests’ privilege, since they, as well as their orthodox brothers in priesthood, was ordained by bishops that, at the time the ordination took place, was in “incomplete communion”.

In simple words: what is the difference between a SSPX priest ordained by Mons de Gallaretta and a priest ordained by His Beatitude Kyrill of Moscow ? Why are you saying the Church has jurisdiction to the one, but not to the other ? In both cases not “the Church” offered them sacramental privilege, but schismatic bishops.

His Beatitude has direct succession to the Apostles. Therefore, he does not need jurisdiction to ordain or to grant permission to other bishops to ordain.

Bibhos Gallaretta’s succession comes through the Bishop of Rome. He cannot ordain without the permission of the Bishop of Rome.

As to the term, “imperfect communion” there are many reasons why an individual or a group has an imperfect communion with the Bishop of Rome. The situation of the Orthodox and the SSPX are both imperfect communion, but not for the same reason.

The Orthodox are a Church with Apostolic succession. The SSPX is not a church, it is a society of Catholics who are in imperfect communion and receives its succession through the Bishop of Rome who is their patriarch.

Are Catholics who consider themselves SSPX members in mortal sin? Are they heretics? Where do they stand in terms of their souls?

This whole thing freaks me out. On one hand, we have the Catholics who dissent with just about all the main teachings, like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Then on the other hand, we have the SSPX who think that we should cancel out Vatican II and go back to the Latin Mass, and they say that all the Popes since then are invalid (what authority do they claim to say such a thing?)!

Sigh…

I wouldn’t say that the person is in a state of mortal sin. I think it’s dangerous to place yourself in a position where you can get pulled into a schismatic mindset. A schismatic mindset is dangerous.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Vir_Iucundus]

The SSPX is not a church, it is a society of Catholics who are in imperfect communion

I think here is the weak point of your thesis. How can one be, at the same time, “catholic” and “in imperfect communion” ? Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. Either one is catholic, or he is not. Don’t you see you maintain here an ambiguity that many people accuse SSPX to maintain ?

The idea that the Pope has legitimate jurisdiction over some schismatics, but no legitimate jurisdiction over other schismatics is beyond my understanding capabilities, something like the cuadrature of the circle.

 

[Stylites]

I think here is the weak point of your thesis. How can one be, at the same time, “catholic” and “in imperfect communion” ? Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. Either one is catholic, or he is not. Don’t you see you maintain here an ambiguity that many people accuse SSPX to maintain ?

The idea that the Pope has legitimate jurisdiction over some schismatics, but no legitimate jurisdiction over other schismatics is beyond my understanding capabilities, something like the cuadrature of the circle.

Who says the SSPX is in schism? All Catholics within the Church Militant are in a state of imperfect communion to one degree or another, but we are all Catholic. Someone who decides to skip Mass in order to go to the beach is in imperfect communion. Another who receives Communion unworthily is in imperfect communion. Yet another who turns a deaf ear to the cries of the poor and the hungry is in imperfect communion. A priest who celebrates the Sacraments without permission of the Church he claims to be a member of is in imperfect communion.

If you go to a valid sacrament of reconciliation in a cathedral or a diocesan parish, and receive absolution and directions to do a penance, and you take your leave and decide to disobey and not do the penance, does that make you a schismatic?

 

[JReducation]

I think here is the weak point of your thesis. How can one be, at the same time, “catholic” and “in imperfect communion” ? Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. Either one is catholic, or he is not. Don’t you see you maintain here an ambiguity that many people accuse SSPX to maintain ?

The idea that the Pope has legitimate jurisdiction over some schismatics, but no legitimate jurisdiction over other schismatics is beyond my understanding capabilities, something like the cuadrature of the circle.

The SSPX is not in schism. They have committed schismatic crimes, but are not in schism.
Also, the argument is not mine. It’s the Church’s law. The Church does not have to follow our logic to create law. She has her own logic. It’s interesting that you mention logic, because this very week the Holy Father made a public statement about this. He said that the Church follows God’s logic not man’s logic. Very often the two will clash, but the Catholic faithful have a duty to accommodate to the Divine logic in all things, including laws, disciplines, faith and morals.

It can see how the term “imperfect communion” can throw someone off, if you compare it to pregnancy. But that’s precisely where the Holy Father’s statement applies. Don’t compare it to pregnancy, because it does not work. That’s a human comparison. One has to think as God thinks. In God’s minds there are degrees of communion.

The Orthodox and the SSPX both have imperfect communion with the Bishop of Rome. However what makes the communion imperfect is different for each.

The Orthodox are a valid and licit community of Churches. Therefore, they are autonomous. The pope has no jurisdiction over them. They do not need the pope to have apostolic succession, because they have valid and legal patriarchs through which they get apostolic succession. The patriarchs make their laws, not the pope.

The SSPX is not a church. It’s an institute made up of Catholics. Therefore, they are not autonomous. Until the SSPX says that it is no longer Catholic, the pope and the rest of the Curia has jurisdiction over it. It’s communion is imperfect, because of the problems that it has, but not because it’s in schism. It’s communion is imperfect because of the SSPX refusal to be Catholic and accept Vatican II. The only choices left to the SSPX is to stay in an imperfect situation or to leave the Catholic Church altogether, which would them place them in schism. I don’t think that’s an option that the SSPX is considering. My guess is that it wants to continue to discuss Vatican II.

From the statements that the Holy Father has made everyday this week about Vatican II, the message to all Catholics is loud and clear. Vatican II is right. Vatican II must be accepted. Vatican II is not up for negotiation. Vatican II must be implemented.

Any Catholic who does not fall in with these requirements is in imperfect communion with the Church, but not in schism. As long as we are Catholic, the pope has jurisdiction over us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cristiano]

I think here is the weak point of your thesis. How can one be, at the same time, “catholic” and “in imperfect communion” ? Either a woman is pregnant, or she is not. Either one is catholic, or he is not. Don’t you see you maintain here an ambiguity that many people accuse SSPX to maintain ?

The idea that the Pope has legitimate jurisdiction over some schismatics, but no legitimate jurisdiction over other schismatics is beyond my understanding capabilities, something like the cuadrature of the circle.

Try to look at communion with the Church from this point of view. A father orders his two twin sons to dress in matching clothes because there is an event where they have to represent the sense of uniformity in the family.
They are told to wear black shoes with shoelaces, a double breasted charcoal suit, a red necktie and a white carnation on the lapel. The two kids go to the store and the first one wears exactly what the father asked for while the second is choosing to wear a read butterfly tie around his neck.
As you can see the two kids match pretty darn well and to the causal observer they are just one and the same; however to an acute observer their matching is incomplete, because of the tie chosen in disobedience to the wishes of the father. Is the father going to say to the disobedient son “You have ruined everything for the family”? No, that father is going to say “you did not listen to me, generally your preferences are fine but in that case I gave very specific instructions, try one more time”.

 

[JReducation]

The pope’s jurisdiction over the SSPX is granted to him by the SSPX itself. The SSPX says that it is Catholic. If you are Catholic and if the Holy See acknowledges that your are Catholic, then you’re not in schism. Therefore, the Church has authority over you.

You can be a Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church. This is the situation of the SSPX. Until the Society accepts Vatican II and the CCC on the pope’s terms, it’s communion is lacking something that the Holy See considers essential, submission.

The Orthodox are in a different situation altogether. They do not claim to be Catholic. Automatically, that places them outside of the jurisdiction of the Church.

However, the Catholic Church must recognize their apostolic succession, because all of those Churches were founded by apostles or the successors to apostles. If they have apostolic succession, then their priesthood is valid and so are their sacraments.

Now comes the next question. Do they celebrate the sacraments legally? The answer to that is a resounding “Yes”. Why? Because their Patriarchs grant their priests faculties to do so. The Patriarchs have that kind of authority as legitimate successors of the apostles.

Why are they in schism? Because they are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are in communion with the Catholic Church on all that is sacred, but not on the primacy of Peter. Their understanding of the primacy is different from what has been revealed.

In fact, issues like collegiality, aggiornamento, religious freedom, ecumenism have ceased to be issues for the Orthodox. They are in communion with the Bishop of Rome on those points.

As you can see, the break in communion can be on different points and a Catholic can be in imperfect communion with the Church, but is still a Catholic. An excommunicated person is a Catholic until he joins another faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV